KISHORE BALIRAM BALU Vs. DY COMR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since June 2013, we have had to deal with a quite extraordinary number of petitions challenging appellate orders under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in externment proceedings. Those appellate orders have been passed by one Mr. Vineet Agarwal, the 2nd Respondent in this case. In Vinayak Dynaneshwar Mainkar v State of Maharashtra & Ors we had occasion to criticize Mr. Agarwal for his approach in these matters. Cri WP No.3257 of 2013, judgment dated 6th September 2013.We found it formulaic and unthinking. There was little or no attention to facts. Settled law was ignored. It seemed to us that his orders were issued mechanically, using standardized phrasing. Since the time of that order, we have encountered other cases, too. Cri WP No. 2807 of 2013; Cri WP No. 2744 of 2013; Cri WP No. 3035 In fairness to Mr. Agarwal, his appellate orders in these cases were all before our decision in Mainkar, as is the appellate order in the case at hand. We expected that following Mainkar the government would, in the larger public interest, and to avoid further adverse orders, withdraw such appellate orders. That has not happened.

(2.) In Mainkar, we noted, among other things, that the cause that Mr. Agarwal professed to serve, that of the State Government and its law and order machinery, was precisely the one most betrayed by his appellate orders, all of which we found to be vulnerable and unsustainable in law. We are fully conscious of the problems faced by the government and the administration in enforcing law and order in this state. That there is rampant and growing criminality in of 2013; Cri WP No. 3207 of 2013 our cities and towns. That this is a problem of serious dimensions is a matter to which we are not blind. But to remain mute in the face of palpable distortions in the law and in its administration, to be only silent bystanders as citizens' fundamental liberties are abrogated, would be to betray our Constitutional mandate. That we will not permit. Nothing in our Constitution permits the deprivation of a person's liberty except according to law and within the framework of Constitutional safeguards. When a high functionary of the state acts otherwise than in conformity with the law, and personal liberties are sacrificed, perhaps at the altar of political or administrative expediency, then we will always step in to protect those rights. We will do so again and again, till the requirements of law are met. This Court has a very long and proud history of defending personal liberty and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It has stood by the citizen in the darkest of times. We will not betray our past. To do so would be to imperil our future.

(3.) Those who hold public office act on behalf of the State as trustees. They are accountable to the people, for in the people vests sovereignity. Every such holder of public office must exercise his powers for, and only for, the public good and to promote public interest. These are not our words. They are the words of the Supreme Court, and they are possessed of the gravitas and heft that attach to all pronouncements of our highest court. Noida Entrepreneurs Association v Noida & Ors, 2011 6 SCC 508 Our task is to ensure that these words receive their fullest respect, that there is adherence to the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court, in both letter and spirit. Every externment order is a restraint on personal liberty. That restraint must be one that is reasonable in the facts of case. Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v Dy Commissioner of Police, 1973 1 SCC 372 Every such restraint is an action by the State and, therefore, must not be arbitrary. It must satisfy the tests of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It must meet the tests of reason and relevance; for "the rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law ... public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them."Noida, supra